Daily Times Editorial May 14, 2012

Show of strength Since the conviction of Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani by the Supreme Court for contempt, the opposition PML-N has ‘gone on the warpath’ against the PM and the PPP-led coalition government. This ‘Go Gilani Go’ campaign was launched without proper homework or taking the other opposition parties on board. The ‘solo’ flight of the PML-N therefore has failed to yield the desired results, despite Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif personally joining and egging on the anti-load shedding protests and elder brother Nawaz Sharif threatening to do the same unless the problem is resolved within four days. In the process, the language being used by the PML-N leaders against the PPP, its leadership and the government has turned increasingly bitter, violent, abusive and denigratory. Stung by what has by now become a pattern in the ‘war of words’ launched against it, the PPP has decided to hit back. The first such manifestation has been the huge rally organised by the PPP at Kamu Shaheed on the provincial boundary between Punjab and Sindh, which according to Chief Minister Sindh Qaim Ali Shah, counted one million people in attendance. Even if one allows for some exaggeration in these matters by the organisers of all rallies, there is no doubting the huge size of the mobilisation achieved by the PPP in its retaliatory mode. To further underline its show of strength, which far outshone even the best of the PML-N’s efforts to date, Qaim Ali Shah vowed that 50 million Sindhis would march towards Lahore if Nawaz Sharif continued to berate the PPP amidst attempts to see the back of the federal government. He criticised Nawaz’s politics by saying he was only indulging in creating chaos and should have the patience to wait till November or December this year, a reference perhaps to the expected general elections. Both Qaim Ali Shah and the PM from London have been rubbing salt into the wounds of Nawaz Sharif for having signed a deal with dictator Musharraf in return for exile and staying out of politics for 10 years. Other speakers from the PPP at the Kamu Shaheed rally asserted that the PPP would take out rallies in other parts of the country to counter the PML-N. President Asif Ali Zardari has congratulated Qaim Ali Shah and the organisers of the rally for a successful show of strength, which will no doubt encourage the PPP to jettison its policy of ‘reconciliation’ so far in favour of taking the gloves off against an aggressive rival. For objective observers, the accusations and counter-accusations of the two sides against each other and the mobilisation of their cadres and supporters could threaten street battles between the contending sides. However, in the usual manner in our politics of leaving ‘grey’ areas for compromise open, if the reports of Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the JUI’s task of playing a mediatory role between the two antagonists are correct, the alarmist prognosis of clashes in the street may be proved just that: too alarmist. The redoubtable Maulana has been charged with bringing the two sides together (or rather persuading them to retreat from the brink of an all-out confrontation) and sort out the matter of the appointment of a permanent chief election commissioner with an eye on the arrangements for holding the next general elections. Since the PML-N has been boycotting any forum where it is required (constitutionally now) to cooperate with the PPP and other parties, on the question of the chief election commissioner and the possible caretaker government to conduct elections, consensus has been conspicuous by its absence. Normal political rivalry, so long as it remains within peaceful and civilised norms, is to be expected and perhaps even constitutes the true essence of democracy, but carrying things to the level of an enmity that brooks no retreat is unwise, both for the interests of the political class in the continuation of the democratic system, as well as given the dire straits the country is in. If the Maulana can pull this rabbit out of a hat and get the two sides to back off, cool down and get down to the business of running the system, even if at the minimal irreducible level required by the constitution, he will have made a positive contribution to the polity and its future.

Daily Times Editorial May 10, 2012

Detailed judgement fallout The seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) has released the detailed judgement regarding the contempt case against Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani. Whereas the short order of the SC had convicted the PM and sentenced him till the rising of the court, it had clarified that the reasons for the conviction and sentencing would be recorded later. Those reasons are now available through the detailed judgement. It must be acknowledged that the impression during the proceedings of the case that the bench had been impatient with and dismissive of the defence counsel’s arguments is not borne out by the full judgment, which has explicated in minute detail its reasons for rejecting the submissions of the defence counsel. However, that in no way implies that the right of appeal is not still valid. The government has responded through the PM and others with its resolve to contest the verdict through an appeal. The judgement says a few things that bear repetition. The SC has clearly stated that the PM runs the risk of a five-year disqualification from being a member of any assembly. The bench has refuted the argument of Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan that it was not competent to hear the case, being the author of the suo motu notice. The bench quoted international and Pakistani jurisprudence to reject the contention that the members of the bench had become judges in their own cause, arguing that it was not a matter of the judges involved but of the SC per se. The verdict has returned to the issue of presidential immunity and left the door open a crack to the possibility of the president himself invoking such immunity here and in Switzerland. The judgment deals in detail with the contention of the PM that no direct orders were issued to him by the court until he was summoned in the contempt hearings by going into the record and findings regarding the summaries put up to and assessed by the PM, with directions that the Law Ministry continue with its stance, i.e. in the court’s view, the stance that the orders of the SC were not implementable given the immunity to the sitting president under Article 248. The court has held the PM responsible despite the argument that he acted in good faith according to the advice tendered to him. On the face of it, and legal luminaries will no doubt be contending for and against the judgement in the days to come, the impasse created by the NRO judgement between the executive and the judiciary seems set to continue. Meanwhile things are hotting up on the political horizon, with the opposition within and outside parliament pressing their demand for the PM to go. Ordinarily, any PM or even minister charged with a misdemeanour would be expected to resign in the best democratic traditions and then fight to clear his name. But in Pakistan, nothing is ever ‘ordinary’. The Swiss cases have always been decried by the PPP as politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence. Going by the shenanigans of the Ehtesab (Accountability) Bureau under Nawaz Sharif’s last government, there is weight in the contention. However, the matter has now been taken out of such circular arguments, judicially by the SC, and politically by the opposition smelling blood. Nawaz Sharif’s ‘brotherly’ advice to the PM to now face the music for siding with President Asif Ali Zardari and reiteration of his view that on moral grounds alone the PM should have resigned after the short order is diluted in the next breath by Nawaz Sharif himself when he says any new PM will also have to write the letter to the Swiss authorities as decreed by the SC. That may be one reason why the PPP decided to go with the incumbent PM who had already been convicted by the SC and try to use whatever legal and political options remained available to fight out the issue. The perception within the ruling circles was too that the next replacement PM will also suffer the same fate at the hands of the SC. Like it or not, the verdict has put the cat among the pigeons politically and the outcome can only be heightened tensions and confrontation in the political field, as well as once again the clouds of uncertainty looming over the whole democratic edifice per se. As usual in Pakistan, we live in interesting times.

Daily Times Editorial May 9, 2012

Disingenuous response US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has used her visit to India to accuse Pakistan of failing to take sufficient action against Lashkar-e-Tayyaba chief Hafiz Saeed, accused of responsibility for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and speculating that al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri is probably somewhere in Pakistan. In their usual knee-jerk and disingenuous responses, both the Pakistan foreign ministry and its boss, Hina Rabbani Khar, have dismissed the allegation about al-Zawahiri as “conjecture” (the ministry) or strongly denied it (Khar), while the usual mantra has been trotted out to provide justiciable proof against Hafiz Saeed. Ms Khar went on to assert that Pakistan had no information about the whereabouts of al-Zawahiri, and if the US had any information or actionable intelligence, it should share it with us. It may be educative to recall that Ms Clinton had made a similar claim in 2010 regarding the presence of bin Laden in Pakistan, almost a year before he was killed by a US raid in Abbottabad. At that time too, the tone and wording of the response was the same. Given this track record, does the honourable foreign minister really expect the US to share ‘actionable intelligence’ on al-Zawahiri with Pakistan when the doubts and suspicions about who in Pakistan may have had knowledge of bin Laden’s presence have scarcely subsided? If Ms Khar means what she says when she declares al Qaeda the common enemy of the US and Pakistan, why the belligerence? Is it not logical that just like bin Laden, al-Zawahiri too may have lain low somewhere inside Pakistan since having to flee Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? Why not an attitude instead of cooperation against a ‘common’ enemy? Or is it simply a knee-jerk response to the fact that Ms Clinton made her damaging accusations in Kolkata? This is no way to run foreign policy. Pakistan cannot deny forever that it has a lot to answer for without risking ridicule and isolation in the world community. Despite the time-honoured ploy of resorting to deception, subterfuge and even being economical with the truth that characterises diplomacy, when caught with one’s pants down, it is usually best to make a clean breast of things. Questions about bin Laden’s living in Pakistan for many years, and for the last five years of his life under the nose of Pakistan’s premier military academy, despite the Obama administration’s taking a soft line and letting the Pakistani military and intelligence services off the hook, refuse to go away. So if Ms Clinton, whether on the basis of ‘actionable intelligence’ or ‘conjecture’ raises the possibility of al-Zawahiri being also holed up in Pakistan, why should we start frothing at the mouth? Since we claim we had nothing to hide in the case of bin Laden, and have nothing to hide in the case of al-Zawahiri, why must we behave as though we are ‘guilty’? As far as Hafiz Saeed is concerned, not only does the Mumbai massacre case beg for closure, Hafiz Saeed’s running around the country lately marshalling the ‘troops’ of the Difa-e-Pakistan (Defence of Pakistan) Council has raised hackles within and outside the country. If the Pakistan foreign ministry has been reduced to a mere mouthpiece of the military establishment and its policies, as many critics allege was the rationale for appointing a relatively inexperienced Ms Khar to the foreign minister’s post, then the present response to Ms Clinton’s remarks will deepen these suspicions. How this will help overcome the present impasse in Pakistan-US relations escapes one. As it is, both sides are talking ‘at’ not ‘to’ each other, if their public statements are anything to go by. The much-touted Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in FATA, meant to provide economic opportunities to locals and access to the US market, appear dead in the water by now. US aid is shrivelling under the guise of ‘rationalisation’ and being made more effective. The US State Department spokesman can go blue in the face explaining that not everything with Pakistan is “at a standstill”, but the sceptics on this far outweigh those abiding by the faith. This is a dangerous conjuncture for Pakistan, one that best resembles a crossroads, one path leading to going with the flow of history and the world today, the other leading inexorably to isolation, internal and regional chaos, and perhaps much worse. The need of the hour is statesman to rise above narrow blinkered vision and see the wood, not just the trees. Any takers?

Daily Times Editorial May 7, 2012

PML-N’s impatience At a rally in Taxila the other day, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif announced the launch of his party’s movement to topple the government of the PPP-led coalition. He issued a call to the people to get ready for a long march for the purpose. There then followed the litany of usual criticisms of the government for its faults and failures, spiced up by rude remarks about Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani being a “puppet” and “pawn” of President Asif Ali Zardari. He went on to raise the accusation once again of the president’s alleged ill-gotten money stashed in Swiss banks, which Nawaz vowed would be returned to their rightful owners, the people of Pakistan. By raising this bogey once again, Nawaz Sharif risks, and is in fact being accosted with, tit-for-tat accusations and allegations by the PPP, Interior Minister Rehman Malik in particular, about his own past transgressions of various types. Whether this kind of exchange will lead anywhere is anyone’s guess. Nawaz Sharif also exposed his frustration with the president, accusing him of misusing the agreement he had made with the late Benazir Bhutto (the reference is to the Charter of Democracy). Although he did not explicate the broken promises he accused the president of, one can surmise that the breach in trust between the two began over the issue of the restoration of the judiciary, which the president agreed to early in the life of the government when the PML-N was still a coalition partner of the PPP, but which did not get implemented until Nawaz Sharif launched his long march for the purpose, with some help, it is reported, from COAS General Kayani. It has been downhill ever since in the relationship between the two erstwhile partners. Meanwhile the PPP’s coalition partners, the PML-Q, the MQM and the ANP have called upon Nawaz Sharif to behave responsibly and not contemplate destabilising the democratic system. Instead, they advised him to adopt a democratic and constitutional path even if he wanted to see the back of the government. What is intriguing is why Nawaz Sharif has abandoned his policy of restraint vis-à-vis the PPP-led government, a restraint informed by the bitter experience of the military taking advantage of the politicians’ falling out to intervene and pack up the democratic system altogether. The restraint shown by Nawaz Sharif over the past four years may have earned him the sarcastic jibe of acting like a 'friendly’ opposition, but it now appears he has allowed himself to be persuaded by the hawks in his party (led by Chaudhry Nisar and backed up by younger brother Shahbaz Sharif) to go all out against the government. The timing of the change is also intriguing, given that the country is in the run up to general elections. The opportunity for the turn has been presented by the contempt conviction of the prime minister by the Supreme Court but the PML-N has displayed its impatience with the legal and political process to be gone through before the verdict can take effect. Nevertheless, the argument that a street agitation may destabilise democracy, if not provide once again an opportunity to anti-democratic forces to wrap up the system per se has not lost its validity, historically or at the present conjuncture. The other, more practical argument against the launching of such a move at this point is that the PML-N seems to be embarking on a solo flight, given that none of the opposition parties, inside or outside parliament, have come on board. This reluctance permeates the stance of the PTI, JUI, JI, et al. Certainly there is much ammunition available to pillory the incumbents, but it must be clarified that the problems facing the country are grave and complex, even if it is conceded that the government has failed to tackle them effectively and may therefore have to answer to the charge of ineptness. The PML-N and its leadership needs to remind itself of the risks and dangers of an all out confrontation between the two mainstream parties on the streets, especially since the aggressive stance of the PML-N has invoked an equally aggressive reaction from the PPP. Mutual criticism within the parameters of a democratic system are inherent in the process of politics, but taking such differences to the level of a confrontation between the workers and supporters of each side is playing with fire. All sides must realise that it in their own mutual interests not to let politics descend once more to the level of an irredeemable enmity, whose advantage can only go to the anti-democratic camp. Democracy has its discontents, but dictatorship is far worse, as Pakistan’s history has witnessed.

Daily Times Editorial May 6, 2012

Let’s play ‘provinces’ After getting a resolution passed in the National Assembly (NA) in favour of a ‘Southern Punjab’ province amidst noisy scenes of protest and unparliamentary behaviour by the opposition PML-N, the PPP has now moved a resolution in the Punjab Assembly along the same lines. Here the resolution may encounter even stormier weather, if not rejection, since the PPP may not be able to muster a simple majority in the resolution’s support, let alone the two thirds majority required constitutionally to initiate the process of creating/carving out a new province. Even if a provincial assembly passes such a resolution by a two thirds majority, this is only a constitutional requirement to ascertain the will of the people’s representatives of that province. This has then to be translated into a constitutional amendment, since the names and number of the provinces are enshrined in the constitution. Needless to say, such a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds majority in both houses of parliament. Short of this constitutional process, such resolutions can merely be described as ‘politicking’. Even more serious from the point of view of a democratic outcome, it may be necessary before embarking on such a radical change in the federal structure to consider the necessity of a referendum in the province in question to ascertain the will of the majority of the people of that province. It is not certain at this point in time, the long held aspirations of the Saraiki-speaking people of southern Punjab notwithstanding, whether such a referendum would produce a vote in favour of a new southern Punjab province. What then is the purpose behind the PPP’s raising this issue at this moment in time? Clearly, despite the expressed sympathies of the PPP for the ‘liberation’ of southern Punjab from ‘Takht Lahore’ (rule from Lahore), at the present conjuncture the move cannot be understood without taking into account the gulf that has opened up recently between the treasury and opposition in the wake of the contempt conviction of the prime minister (PM) by the Supreme Court. Even before the detailed judgment is received from the court and the appeals process is exhausted, the PML-N has jumped the gun, declared the PM no longer eligible to hold office, and threatened him with physically preventing his entry into the NA. When the Southern Punjab resolution was being passed in the NA, the PML-N was continuing with its rowdyism and misbehaviour in the house, despite the pleas of the Speaker to uphold the dignity and decorum of parliament. The distraction may have inadvertently helped the PPP to get its resolution passed, since the PML-N did not find the time or focus to oppose the motion. If the PPP stands accused of playing politics with the issue of a southern Punjab province to embarrass its rival PML-N (which is now on the warpath against the government) and strengthen its traditional hold in that area in the run up to the general elections, it is not alone in such endeavours. The passing of the Southern Punjab resolution in the NA, media reports say, was only made possible by allaying the reservations of coalition ally PML-Q that similar efforts for a Hazara province in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) would follow. PML-Q has a special interest in that issue since it has gained at the expense of the PML-N ion the area, the latter having been ambivalent so far in supporting the demand for a Hazara province. Ironically, and perhaps with the belated realisation that it was taking a beating on the issue in the Hazara area, a traditional stronghold of the party, the PML-N has woken up and in turn moved a resolution in the KP Assembly supporting the creation of a Hazara province. So it can be discerned that the mere initiation of a move to carve out a new Southern Punjab province has set off similar demands vis-à-vis Hazara, Bahawalpur (a princely state before being merged in One Unit), and even a Mohajir province in Sindh. The last appears to be the outcome of the clever move by the MQM in moving a resolution in the NA in support of a Hazara province. It may have seemed strange to some that the MQM should be taking such an interest in an issue that did not concern it directly. Yet the move now appears as the MQM’s Trojan Horse to have the concept of new provinces being carved out of the existing ones accepted in principle, thereby paving the way for their own project: a Mohajir province in Sindh. Since both a Mohajir province in Sindh and a Hazara province in KP are likely to arouse opposition from other ethnic groups, in Sindh from the Sindhis and in KP from the Pashtuns, the democratic method of ascertaining the will of the majority of the people of a province through a referendum may stave off ethnic strife and possible bloodshed. The bottom line is that the political, constitutional and democratic process of creating/carving out new provinces is a lengthy affair fraught with many a slip between the cup and the lip, and therefore unlikely to see the light of day before the elections overtake us. The present ‘Pandora’s Box’ therefore, is likely to remain a political football rather than become a reality any time soon.

Daily Times Editorial may 3, 2012

Working class woes May Day commemorates every year the martyrdom of the American workers of Chicago in 1886, peacefully agitating for an eight hour working day (normal working days at that time stretched up to 20 hours), eight hours of rest, and eight hours of leisure time. This year, May Day was commemorated amidst one of the worst recessions to hit the global economy since the Great Depression of the late 1920s and 30s. All over the world, the pain of the recession has been borne by working people, including even qualified professionals, who have joined the ranks of the unemployed in the millions. On the other hand, despite the fact that the financial sector was the real culprit because of its unregulated casting off of prudence, many of the big banks have been bailed out by taxpayers’ money and are currently reportedly flourishing in the midst of the miseries inflicted on the people. The day was commemorated all over the world in anger and amidst gloom. Working people demanded an end to the austerity policies that have deepened the recession, instead demanding a stimulus to revive struggling economies to mitigate the sufferings of ordinary citizens. In Pakistan too, the working class came out in strength to put forward its charter of demands that have found repetition every year because governments and employers have done little to overcome the miseries of unemployment, inflation, load shedding, etc. In addition, the workers’ organisations have demanded a minimum wage of Rs 20,000 or 12 grams of gold, the abolition of feudalism and abandonment of privatisation (a disaster here). They have also demanded that false cases against workers for trade union activities be taken back, the favourite tactic of employers in collusion with the police. Other demands include the reinstatement of sacked workers, withdrawal of the condition of 50 workers in a unit for trade union registration in Punjab, rooting out the contract system, registration of brick kiln workers and the abolition of bonded labour. On the day, an unseemly ‘race’ was witnessed between the federal and Punjab governments to appear more worker-friendly than the other. So while the prime minister (PM) announced an increase in the minimum wage from the present Rs 7,000 to 8,000, Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif went one better by raising it to Rs 9,000. The problem of course is that the current Rs 7,000 minimum wage has yet to be implemented across the board, especially in the private sector, where the absence of labour inspections on the pressure of employers has left this and other aspects of industrial relations unmonitored. In addition, the PM announced 12,000 homes for workers, seven schools, seven industrial homes and four community centres. Shahbaz countered that by getting elder brother Nawaz to distribute the keys to 1,296 flats to workers. The real problem now is that after the 18th Amendment, most if not all labour issues are dealt with by the provincial governments, where there are many lacunae and flaws. The issue for the working class in Pakistan (and arguably in most other parts of the world) is that their problems and demands have to be negotiated with governments not necessarily inclined to concede a living wage, employment and reforms to equalise to the extent possible the privileges of the rich with the deprivation of common folk. Socialism, once the banner under which most workers’ movements struggled, may not have lived up to its promise of a just society free of the exploitation of man by man, but the present conjuncture clearly indicates that triumphal capitalism’s inherent contradictions have come to the fore once again with a vengeance. In these difficult times, new forms of struggle are and will arise (e.g., the Occupy movement). But perhaps the real need is for the working class to intervene in politics on its own behalf rather than rely on the largesse of governments not necessarily willing to accede social justice. In short, the working class in Pakistan (and arguably elsewhere) needs its own party or movement to fight for its special interests that are congruent with the interests of the vast majority of people on this planet.

Daily Times Editorial May 2, 2012

COAS’s ‘intervention’ Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has taken ‘advantage’ of the occasion of the army’s Youm-e-Shuhada (Day of Martyrs) in prepared remarks to deliver a ‘message’ (despite his denial of the same in answer to media questions) to all stakeholders of the country to play by the rules. Reiterating the military’s support for a continuance of democracy, General Kayani reminded his audience, those present as well as those who would receive his words later, that all state institutions were enjoined to function within their constitutional limits. In the context of the conviction of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani by the Supreme Court for contempt, the COAS explicated that the prime objective of the democratic system was “to ensure the welfare, happiness and increased dignity of the people and the establishment of a balanced society where every person can get justice equally”. This is a very interesting formulation at the present juncture. It can be divided into three parts. One, it is open to question whether the democracy we have had over the last few years has indeed ensured the “welfare, happiness and increased dignity” of the people. Most people would argue it has done precisely the opposite, given the increasing miseries vast numbers of our people are going through. But that, contrary to the impatient and angry view that blames democracy for the people’s woes, thereby throwing open the door to anti-democratic and authoritarian solutions that have a proven track record of being disasters in our history, is a questionable position. It is less democracy and more the practitioners of the system at whose door the faults, warts and mistakes of the present conjuncture need to be placed. The solution for these is not to throw the baby of democracy out with the bathwater but to understand in our historical context how the absence of democracy and its continuity has led to the present situation. Fixing the faults requires continuation with the nascent democratic experiment till we get it right, either with the present cast of characters in the political class or eventually throwing up a new and hopefully better lot. Second, similar remarks apply to the failure so far to establish “a balanced society”. The last part however, has extra resonance in the context of the political-judicial crisis the country is passing through. In sum, the COAS is ending a message to the politicians, especially the opposition, and all other institutions of state, including arguably the judiciary, to understand the limits on their actions laid down in the constitution, particularly in their relationship and interaction with all other players. For the COAS, this ‘reminder’ has been necessitated, first and foremost by the dark clouds of political confrontation and secondly by the demands of the ongoing struggle against terrorism, a struggle requiring all stakeholders to pull together in the overall interest of the country’s security and well-being, rather than tear each other, and thereby the country, apart at the seams. It is of course the military’s prime task to stave off all threats to the security of the country, and the occasion was a poignant reminder of the sacrifices of our soldiers in the struggle against fanaticism and brutal, indiscriminate terrorism, which has cost the lives not only of some 5,000 personnel of our armed forces, but also taken a toll of some 35,000 civilian victims of the extremists. The COAS has delivered a timely and wise cautionary message to all and sundry. While welcoming his measured remarks, it may not be inappropriate to hope that the military too by now understands the cost of its own past transgressions against civilian democratic governments and the need to eschew such a course in the future if Pakistan is to see a stable polity, which is the sine qua non for a stable and flourishing economy, the only guarantee of improved lives for the majority of our people. If it has, and is now sharing its newfound wisdom with all other institutions of the state and all stakeholders in the politics and future of the country, hopefully the message will get through and restrain all and sundry from the kind of adventurism that has in the past, more often than not, brought the whole temple crashing down around our ears, to our great cost and peril. Time to turn over a new leaf and march forward together without reducing politics or the division of powers inherent in the constitutional construct to a zero-sum game.